Originally posted by Seasanctuary

If the truth can't be determined in some area, why not admit it? Why pick one of many contradictory answer frameworks just so you can feel like you have an answer of some kind?

Socratici has posted something I agree with here.

Everybody makes judgements on things. Besides I didn't say that the truth couldn't be determined. What i said was he realized that he had too narrow a frame of mind to determine if anything was true, it was his process of deciding what was true or not which was wrong, not that he couldn't determine what was true.

Besides, you wouldn't like it if a person remained agnostic over the issue of murder being wrong. If somebody told you "ah but we don't know where murder being immoral comes from, let alone it being true, so we best stay agnostic about it" I think you would quickly make an exit.

Originally posted by Socratici Viri

Because everyone (even agnostics) adopts some criteria or standard by which they precede to judge all other frameworks by.

Welcome aboard Socratici. So far your posts have been really good.

Originally posted by Socratici Viri

It's not a matter of taste, the article also outlines one of Wilson's objective reasons for adopting Christianity, namely the resurrection, which Wilson feels is best explained by accepting a supernatural view as accounted for in the Biblical records.

Would you mind pointing out where he said that? I've seen two articles linked in this thread and don't see that idea in either one. I could be missing it or you could be referring to a third article.

Either way, I'm glad you recognize a distinction between an objective reason and...whatever else you want to call the other reasons.

Further, for many theists, belief in God is evidenced and conditioned by their epistemic view regarding the rationality of beliefs, and, therefore, regard belief in God as knowledge.

Belief seeming to confirm itself is common among many contradictory religious sects.

As mentioned in a previous post, if belief in God is among our (theists) sets of basic beliefs, then it is not first required for us to meet the skeptics burdens of proof that they may require for belief in God for us to be rationally justified in our belief of God. Skeptics seem unable or unwilling to see this perspective, and want to impose a double standard when it comes to the issue of God, or belief in God. I see no reasons why I am obligated to maintain your standards of evidence and acceptability of beliefs, or, why your line of credit in regard to ascertaining the "truth" is better.

I have no special objection with people uncritically believing their own religion is right, so long as they don't expect me to confuse that with a critical approach to finding out the truth.

This Wilson fellow can believe what he likes. I -- and other skeptics around here -- tend to be more interested in whether he claims the truth of Christianity can be determined not just assumed.

Originally posted by Darth Ovious

Everybody makes judgements on things. Besides I didn't say that the truth couldn't be determined. What i said was he realized that he had too narrow a frame of mind to determine if anything was true, it was his process of deciding what was true or not which was wrong, not that he couldn't determine what was true.

I'd be interested to hear how you think religious truth can be determined without conveniently picking criteria to fit a desired end result (which is what I'm hearing out of this "too narrow" talk.)

Besides, you wouldn't like it if a person remained agnostic over the issue of murder being wrong. If somebody told you "ah but we don't know where murder being immoral comes from, let alone it being true, so we best stay agnostic about it" I think you would quickly make an exit.

I don't think moral values are facts external to human convention anyway.

Originally posted by Seasanctuary

I'd be interested to hear how you think religious truth can be determined without conveniently picking criteria to fit a desired end result (which is what I'm hearing out of this "too narrow" talk.)

Nope, the too narrow talk also hindered his understanding of atheism which he admitted. He restricted his criteria for truth to debunk Christianity while at the same time he admitted it ended up doing the same for atheism. So his criteria effectively ended up ruling out what he embraced anyway. I suppose he could always see if this criteria fitted any other religion, but IMO and yes, I do mean my opinion he would also ended up ruling everything else out. So in the end to determine if anything was true he had to revalue his criteria, and this lead him back to Christianity.

In the end, everyone has a criteria that they use to determine if they believe something or not.

I don't think moral values are facts external to human convention anyway.

Exactly my point, but would it stop you from walking away from somebody who admitted that they couldn't decide if murder was wrong or not? No it wouldn't, because you probably value your survival but at the same time I'm betting you would walk away thinking that the guy was crazy to even consider it.

Originally posted by Seasanctuary

Would you mind pointing out where he said that? I've seen two articles linked in this thread and don't see that idea in either one. I could be missing it or you could be referring to a third article.

Yes, he confessed that Christ has risen. I take him to be speaking of the resurrection and it's supernatural basis (and the resurrection is but one of the Christian evidences) over and against the many natural hypothesis for the risen Christ.

Either way, I'm glad you recognize a distinction between an objective reason and...whatever else you want to call the other reasons.

Belief seeming to confirm itself is common among many contradictory religious sects.

I am not simply talking about a belief or sets of beliefs that confirm themselves. That is a generalization of sorts and while what you are saying may have some truth, I am speaking more specifically about an epistemic path that justifies belief in God. I can, for example, take my faculties to be of such and such a nature that my perceptions of the sense datum are correct, that when I have such and such an experience, say seeing a barn, that, that is evidence for my belief that there is a barn that I am seeing. Further, I may take that type of evidence and use if as a justification for my beliefs. A similar epistemic route can be used to justify belief in God, i.e. non-inferential.

I have no special objection with people uncritically believing their own religion is right, so long as they don't expect me to confuse that with a critical approach to finding out the truth.

This Wilson fellow can believe what he likes. I -- and other skeptics around here -- tend to be more interested in whether he claims the truth of Christianity can be determined not just assumed.

The problem is that you have not yet defined what routes you use to determine what beliefs are justified, and why they are justified.

Originally posted by Darth Ovious

Welcome aboard Socratici. So far your posts have been really good.

Thanks, I actually joined a while back and lurk every now and then. :)

Originally posted by Socratici Viri

Reason need not lead one to belief in God; if belief in God is already foundational to the rationality of our beliefs, then the skeptics attacks are misguided. To assume that the Christian (or theist) must first prove that God exists for their belief to count among their sets of beliefs which are rationally justified is putting the cart before the horse to the extent that belief in God is not an inferentially drawn belief of some type. It is basic, and is non-inferentially justified as a belief. Many epistemic renderings fall into this category.

So your basically somehow justifying presuppositionalism? Not sure what your getting at...

Chris

Originally posted by Bubba

So your basically somehow justifying presuppositionalism? Not sure what your getting at...

Chris

No, not presuppositionalism, I am outlining the idea that there are beliefs that are basic (either foundational to other beliefs, or, for the non-evidentialist, beliefs that are central to a system of beliefs) and do not need to first be proved to be rationally held.

Originally posted by Socratici Viri

Yes, he confessed that Christ has risen. I take him to be speaking of the resurrection and it's supernatural basis (and the resurrection is but one of the Christian evidences) over and against the many natural hypothesis for the risen Christ.

Larsen says this as a way of saying that Wilson has reembraced Christianity.
For you to expand that is to impose your beliefs upon Wilson.
We have no way of knowing the scope and detail of his belief.

Originally posted by Socratici Viri

No, not presuppositionalism, I am outlining the idea that there are beliefs that are basic (either foundational to other beliefs, or, for the non-evidentialist, beliefs that are central to a system of beliefs) and do not need to first be proved to be rationally held.

Nick:
Sounds like reformed epistemology to me. So, you'd say that belief in god is "properly basic?"

Cheers,

Nick

Originally posted by nickcopernicus

Nick:
Sounds like reformed epistemology to me. So, you'd say that belief in god is "properly basic?"

Cheers,

Nick

Yes, I would say that belief in God is properly basic.

Originally posted by PitchForkPat

He appears to have gone senile which would explain this.

I always find that word very funny. Senile isn't even a diagnosis. It doesn't
mean anything. Its like saying a cat is sick because he's a cat.

What White's conversion shows is that it is possible to be an intellectual
atheist who argues against Christianity and convert into Christianity.

An example is this page which takes the assumption as the writer puts it:
I would not expect many people who understand the seriousness of the problems with Christianity to then convert to it.

http://www.users.globalnet.co.uk/~sl...original_email

Of course it won't stop some atheists from assuming it has to be something other
than a personal logical conclusion. I suspect some atheists just won't
accept that it's possible for anyone to be an atheist and study the
Bible and come to a personal logical conclusion that Christianity is true.

Originally posted by salvationfound

What White's conversion shows is that it is possible to be an intellectual
atheist who argues against Christianity and convert into Christianity.

An example is this page which takes the assumption as the writer puts it:
I would not expect many people who understand the seriousness of the problems with Christianity to then convert to it.

http://www.users.globalnet.co.uk/~sl...original_email

Of course it won't stop some atheists from assuming it has to be something other
than a personal logical conclusion. I suspect some atheists just won't
accept that it's possible for anyone to be an atheist and study the
Bible and come to a personal logical conclusion that Christianity is true.

A personal belief yes. A LOGICAL conclusion? No.

Originally posted by Moksha

A personal belief yes. A LOGICAL conclusion? No.

Well, you are wrong. People can and do come to logical conclusions regarding the claims of Christianity.

That the claims are false. Yes.

Actually I don't think you can really come to a logical conclusion either way.